politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
It's not a "gambit", it's the only logical outcome given what the Supreme Court did. They crafted a new protection for the President out of thin air. They may act like it's been there all along, but when Smith first filed these charges, these protections (particularly regarding getting any staff testimony at all) didn't exist.
So the prosecutor made a bunch of charges based on one set of rules, then the SC stepped and said "Naw, use these rules instead". Of course, Trump will say that these new rules render the entire Prosecution null and void, while Smith wil say that it has little effect. So the judge has no choice but to take in all the evidence and make a ruling. She wouldn't be doing her job correctly if she didn't do it this way. It's kind of like when the judge in the GA trial held a "mini-trial" of the DA and her vacation plans, when assessing whether the DA's relationship was a problem or not.
The timing may be convenient for Trump's opponents, having a public airing of charges right before an election (and maybe a bit after his NY sentencing). But let's not pretend that Trump didn't purposefully do everything he could to delay his trials until after the election. If this one didn't get delayed quite far enough, it's not Jack Smith's fault. He wanted this trial over with by now.